REVIEW: Matt Damon & Paul Greengrass Get Their HateAmerica On In ‘Green Zone’
by John NolteThe poetic irony of the delayed release of the shaky-cammed Hollywood temper tantrum known as “Green Zone” couldn’t be sweeter. Yes, the very same week our Iraqi allies held a historic election that ended up much more successful than we could have ever hoped, our own Hollywood swoops in with a piece of cinematic sour grapes in the frantic, desperate hope of rewriting the history of a war they were so eager for us to lose.
After making the last two “Bourne” films together, director Paul Greengrass and star Matt Damon have teamed up again in an un-thrilling attempt to transfer that same success to the streets of Baghdad. But this time within a very real and recent historical event, the immediate aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In a vacuum where history doesn’t exist, the film’s absurd premise would still undermine itself. But Greengrass isn’t working in a vacuum. Unfortunately for him, we all know the truth and this truth reduces his story to a strained, poorly contrived, episodic, Hollywood Hills fever dream that no amount of suspended disbelief can overcome.
Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, a good soldier in charge of an army team on the search for WMD four weeks after shock and awe. Baghdad is in chaos as the newly liberated Iraqis loot the city and scattered snipers take potshots at anyone wearing the American flag. Miller risks his own life and those of his men based on intelligence that’s supposed to reveal the location of Saddam’s WMD facilities. And this is the third time they’ve come up empty. Frustrated and angry, Miller starts to ask questions and demand answers about the source of the intel. Naturally, his commanding officers aren’t interested in answering those questions or even facing the possibility the weapons might not be found. That would upset the Bush administration’s narrative of the New Iraq.
SPOILERS COMING
Miller’s skepticism draws the attention of CIA station head Martin Brown, a character who should’ve been called Liberal Argument because his job is to spout leftist talking points as Greengrass muscles the truth to insure Brown’s proved correct. Brown and Miller join forces to find the source of the intel, whose known only by the code name Magellan. Poundstone, a sleazy Pentagon senior Bush official played by Greg Kinnear, has sole access to Magellan, and using him as a source, made the case for the war with the help of Lawrie Dayne (Amy Ryan), a Wall Street Journal reporter who reported as gospel Magellan’s dire warnings about Saddam’s chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.
Greengrass’s absurd, twisted little fantasy is that this lie caused the insurgency that would eventually result in the deaths of thousands of Americans soldiers. It works something like this (I think). In Jordan, before the war, one of Saddam’s generals held a secret meeting with Poundstone and told him there were no WMD. So desperate was the Bush administration to go to war, they ignored this and went ahead with the invasion anyway. The problem is that the only man who can stop the insurgency is also this same general, who must now be killed in order to cover up that the administration knew there were no WMD.
This hysterical lie Greengrass, Damon, and Universal Studios have invested so much in is so laughably desperate I’m still having trouble believing they told it. Seemingly intelligent people have positioned $150 million dollars worth of propaganda on a stool with one wobbly leg. How did they delude themselves into believing that leg wouldn’t be immediately kicked out from under and the whole tower of bull shit collapsed as soon as everyone in the audience with an IQ above 75 remembered the well known fact that the United Nations, France, Germany, and Russia (among others) all had the same intel we did showing Saddam in possession of WMD?
Even removing the context of history and truth, the premise is still a completely illogical storytelling device that asks us to buy into the idea that a general from the enemy’s army convinced a Pentagon official Saddam wasn’t in possession of WMD. Why would Poundstone believe him? What did this General show him that was so convincing and incontrovertible? Poundstone, however, is so terrified of this information getting out that he orders up a big conspiracy to have the General and Miller killed — instead of, you know, telling the press, “The General did tell me there were WMD and now he’s lying.”
As the story plods along — and plod it does with zero tension — the moral hole Greengrass obviously has in his heart, ultimately turns on our own troops. Miller’s job is to go rogue and save this Ba’athist General — the only man who can save us from the coming insurgency (as the thuddish exposition that mars the whole script continually reminds us). But there has to be bad guys, so Greengrass chooses the American Special Forces and turns them into a brutal team of ruthless killers working for Poundstone. By the time the third act arrives, all of unholy Hollywood is hoping we’ll cheer as Saddam’s former henchmen, the monsters behind those mass graves, shoot down a helicopter full of American servicemen.
I just felt sick.
The Iraqi people don’t come off much better. There’s one Iraqi man Miller uses as a translator. We’ll call him Ali-Token. But in the end he comes off a self-destructive fool. The rest are nameless and faceless, alternately selfish looters or helpless, pathetic victims of the invasion. This refusal to humanize the Iraqi people is part of the leftist gameplan. To make them real and sympathetic is to say they were worthy of liberation. Can’t have that.
In Matt Damon’s Iraq there are no mass graves and there are certainly no terrorists, only dark, brutal nightmarish prisons manned by American soldiers. Outside our men terrify helpless Iraqi prisoners with German Shephards. Inside they’re choked, bruised, bloodied and kept in black hoods. There’s also no New York Times. Even though the Lawrie Dayne character is obviously based on Judith Miller and her reporting in the liberal Times, the newspaper Dayne works for is the conservative Wall Street Journal. The L.A. Times’ Chief Water Carrier tried to explain this obvious bias away by informing us that the studio was worried about a lawsuit — as though no one thought to consider a fictional newspaper name.
Politics aside, Greengrass and his shaky-cam have finally reached the full self-parody stage. During the “Bourne” films I at least wished I could see what was going on. Here, especially during what’s supposed to be the big, important climatic set-piece, the camera is so epileptic and the lighting so dark you tune out and go to your happy place. That place where the multi-millionaires in charge of the most powerful propaganda device known to man aren’t soulless liars at war with us.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
553 Comments
The fact Greengrass gave us United 93 seems more and more fictitious every day.
Damon is a dumba$$! BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT! put him out of business today and forever.
Greengrass is a hollywood whore! BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT! put him out of business as well.
Do I wish Matt Damon would get rectal cancer? I guess I do…
No Thanks! Damon’s mom will have to see it a couple extra times for my wife and I!
Well, I'll say is thank God for Bush, General Petraeus and the members of congress who voted to fund the surge and deny these leftists the defeat they've been salivating over.
Ironically, nothing after the spoiler warning came as a surprise.
Thanks for taking the hit once again, John.
Damon is a Danny Glover/Sean Penn wannabe…
The Bourne series was quite enough from these two anti-American douche bags. John did you really have to use three different pics of Damon playing dress-up in Army fatigues? That gutless leftist hasn't earned the right to wear those.
[...] Reviews: John Nolte at Big Hollywood Kyle Smith Christian Toto Kurt Loder Debbie Schlussel Sonny Bunch movieguide.org Christian [...]
Except for Saddam and the entire Iraqi military leadership missing, the bombings and sectarian strife and the continually high body count Iraq looks pretty much like pre-US invasion Iraq.
Can't wait to not see it.
I read that "Green Zone" had a soft opening weekend, as is typical for a anti-U.S. Iraq movie.
How many duds do these Follywooders have to churn out before they figure it out?
MAAAATTTYYYY DAMON!
Ya the open and free elections say something I guess. Saddam used to get 99% of the vote and the other 1% were tortured( not patty caked like GITMO) and killed.
No difference.
Damon RULES, Greengrass RULES, every real critic in the world GIVES THIS A GREAT REVIEW.
FACT: MOVIES are more important than stupid politics. You can make a good movie from ANY political point of view. It's just that Nolte and you guys are so DOGMATIC about your views and your hatred of "Hollywood" (as if it's some tangible entity and not focused exclusively on MAKING MONEY, not THWARTING YOUR VALUES.)
I GUARANTEE this movie is great and exciting. Oh, and hey JOHN NOLTE, what branch of the MILITARY did you serve in?
There is only a very small segment of the population of the United States that would care to spend their money to see their entire country (themselved) portrayed as treacherous butchers. Why do they think they'll make a profit on this?
Matt Damon is just an inarticulate version of Ben Affleck.
Sean Penn could give it to him.
How can it had "had a soft opening weekend"? It opened TODAY. It hasn't "had" much of anything yet. We'll know the figures when Finke posts them around midnight PST though.
How many movies do ANY of you people see a year? Sounds like no one here even CARES about movies, they just like hearing Nolte's Republican T-points.
John, do you still think that Paul Reikhoff "gets it"? Remember, he is the guy who wrote that op-ed about "Hurt Locker" and also just happens to have a role in this movie. To think that a veteran would have anything to do with this movie is pathetic. Again, if you are a vet of Iraq or Afghanistan, you have no business joining IAVA. VFW and American Legion are far better VSO's, and they aren't led by a narcasistic jackass like Reikhoff.
Big John, what branch did you serve in? What was your MOS? How many times did you deploy?
I don't know…Green Zone was around 50 % on Rottentomatoes. Some critics are definitely creaming themselves over the politics, but it's gotten many negative reviews, too.
Dress up? I always thought that Damon was a real American hero. Huh. Fooled by Horrorwood again.
I'd like to spend a few minutes with Damon in the ring. I'm just sayin'
Poor, poor, Matt…heading the way of Sean Penn! Nah! I can't even fake a tear for him……
Oh yeah! And soon he will be about as popular….oh wait! I think he has arrived!
Good catch, BJH. But that said…
By "you people," do you mean people of color? People without color? People who like show tunes? People who follow Nolte like lap dogs of the Right? Nah, you couldn't mean that. That would make you an unhelpful troll and your opening correction was helpful. Thanks for that.
Wasn't in the military. Wasn't my point. Just that Nolte acts like ANYTHING short of soldiers eating apple pie and shrouded in an angelic glow is some "attack on the troops." Not every soldier is infalliable, and not every story needs to have this 1954 "produced in cooperation" vibe that Nolte longs for. Even a smart film guy like John should be able to tell you that cinema, and ART, is steeped in the questioning of authority and in moral grey areas; There is nothing artistically wrong with a film that simply asks questions and portrays a more complex worldview than some retro-jingoist Lee Underwood stars-and-stripes patriotism.
He was a gunny for Bill Maher's unit.
Gosh darn it all, BJH, but I like you. Still, your "FACT" isn't and you know that.
"By the time the third act arrives, all of unholy Hollywood is hoping we’ll cheer as Saddam’s former henchmen, the monsters behind those mass graves, shoot down a helicopter full of American servicemen."
One of these days, dear Lord, just one of these days, I am going to get my dearest wish to see 'unholy Hollywood' dumped naked in the middle of a Taliban stronghold – with pink feather boas and six pork chops tied around their necks. And as the Taliban bends them all over to show them how you get rectal cancer the fast way, I will delight in hearing those Hollywood unholies scream their little lungs out, begging for American soldiers to come save them. (And if my wish is REALLY granted – the Americans won't.)
Just wondering how things would have worked out if we'd gone into Bahgdad in '91 instead of kowtowing to the Saudis or Clinton had enforced the UN resolutions, as weak as they were.. Kind of a shoulda coulda woulda thing. The pretext for invasion was as flawed as the evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9-11 and we never should have gone in. It was a 'never time to do it right but always time to do it over thing. We should have been smarter about the whole 'war on terror' thing cause it's hurt our country badly. Just sayin' is all.
I agree that not every soldier is an angel. But Hollywood shows every soldier as a dirtbag/gulliable/alcoholic/wife beater. I'm an Army vet and enjoy some "anti" war movies (Full Metal Jacket being among my favorites) but I wish Hollywood could at least show some balance.
Big John, if you pay taxes and vote you can say anything you want. I'm sure John pays his taxes and definitely votes. Being in the military has nothing to do with whether you can critique a military-styled movie.
John Nolte's post is dead right. I went and walked out after about an hour because all the conspiracy stuff was frankly not only way over the top, it was plain old boring. Hoo boy. And here I'd read the early reviews and yet went this afternoon after I got off work, and saw this flick despite all the fair warnings. What can I say. I liked .. and still like … the whole Bourne series. I guess I was hoping for something along those lines. And honestly there were some really nice scenes from Baghdad. But all that Oliver Stone style paranoia and inability to actually tell a story with at least a little credibility … really lousy beyond lousy. Frankly the only good thing I got out of this was the popcorn and I could have microwaved that at home.
You don't rate that fake-ass uniform you pretend to wear in your pathetic movie, Damon.
Even the film critic of my local paper, who usually can't go a paragraph without her lefty politics intruding, couldn't quite bring herself to give this a passing grade.
I'm not sure to what degree this factors in, but I think it's less that Hollywood disrespects the military and more that they just don't KNOW anybody in the military. I know it's fairly common just about anywhere else in America to have cousins, brothers and uncles who served (as I did, having grown up in Ohio)… But in GENERAL, not a lot of people from L.A. join the military, at least not from the wealthy Westside neighborhoods that produce most of our filmmakers and actors. I think it's a simple cluelessness. Incidentally, Damon was on Charlie Rose this week and was very reverential about the real troops who served as advisers on the film.
Phuq matt damon
The more I hear about Damon the more I would just like to kick his ass. I am pretty old but he is a wimp that deserves a good ass kicking. I know violent but my dad was of the WW11 generation and I was taught a bit different from the encounter group lawyered up fools of today.
A defeat that almost unfolded because Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney spent 3 years with their heads buried in the sand, refusing to modify strategy while American soldiers and Iraqi civilians died. This is history, folks. It's fact. Please don't put General Petraeus, a great soldier, in the same category as the commander-in-chief whose one good decision, extremely late in the game, doesn't make up for the fact that he put us into the mess in the first place, and then exacerbated it.
Shooting down American soldiers!
Damon is a creep to play this part. I always thought he played himself in "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and I was right!
I didn't hear anyone cheer in the theater when the helicopter was downed, nor did I get the sense we were supposed to (unlike, say, Avatar). The copter is not hunting Damon, it's hunting the general. If we're supposed to take anything from this scene, it's that DoD has put these soldiers in harm's way for a faulty mission and they've died as a result.
Which sounds pretty much like what happened to me.
LOL, both of you!!!
$5 says he's a movie studio intern charged with surfing 'the blogs'. I bet he got the name "Big John" after wearing mesh shorts to an Obama speech.
I see between 100 and 200 movies a year, so I appreciate John Nolte filtering out the poop. I don't always agree with his reviews (i.e. Star Trek), but he's usually spot-on when it comes to movies that are ripe with anti-American propaganda.
Still, I think you're undercutting Bush's resolve. Sure, he was overly loyal to Rumsfeld and others, stuck by their strategy of not losing, but not winning either, and let the war drag on unnecessarily while Democrats pounded him.
A lesser president would have just called it a night and let Iraq fall back into the hands of evil men, but Bush found the right men for the job in Petraeus and Gates. I think every one should consider that before passing their last judgment on our former president.
The fact that turds like Damon put on a military uniform, even in the land of make believe, really pisses this former Marine off! The double wammy, for me, is that assclown is from Boston too.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." — Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
I guess some of you moviegoing fans can keep the old fact/fiction elements clear…
I think others might be misled or even enjoy misleading.
Its hard ton fool an old lady.
It's a Matt Damon film. You can pretty much expect it to show the American military in a bad light. Good thing he wasn't involved in the screenplay for Saving Private Ryan, or the U.S. soldiers would've been portrayed as murderous barbarians bent on stealing France from its German protectors.
I will go and see this movie 25 times, NOT!!!!!
Damon is a pussy who won't take tough questions from anyone except kiss ass liberals like the joker on WGN Chicago. Eberts review begins with"even though all this is fiction and not based on facts" ebert thinks its a great historic film. How sick our these bastards.
Ebert and Damon both will rot in hell someday. Ebert is already there.
John, you focus exclusively on the distortions of this film, but not on the alarming fact that so much of it hews closely to the the events of 2003. Despite the liberties taken with facts in this film, and with the exception of the focus of intelligence on one figure (and one country) and the supposition that an official outright lied, the broad contours are true. The Bush administration did look the other way when faced with faulty intel. DoD did ignore advice from the intelligence community and the Army not to disband the Iraqi army, which pretty much directly led to the insurgency. The country was put into the hands of bureaucrats and kids fresh out of college, and it stayed that way for 3 years until Bush finally got a clue, sacked Rumsfeld, brought in Petreaus, and changed strategy. One good decision way late in the game does not undo what may have been the worst wartime leadership in American history, and the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Most people I know, including supporters of the invasion, Republicans, and veterans of the conflict, believe Bush f*cked up. Heck, I wish more of this movie was fiction.
The Greengrass aesthetic usually bothers me, but it worked better for me here than in some of his other films. I think it was because he tended to use a wider lens, allowing us to take in more of the scenery and characters so that we were not just seeing a blurry face shaking in front of the camera for a few moments.
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." — Bob Graham, December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
no lies you idiot. Your hero Clinton, Biden, Rockerfellor etc.. all Democrats thought and were right that Iraq had WMD's. Your just another stupid anti-America AO like your butt brother Damon.
What is your point, exactly? That because these people were wrong, Bush was less so? And how does this exculpate him from the horrible execution of the postwar occupation?
Furthermore, how does the belief that Iraq held WMD justify an invasion, cutting short a UN weapons inspection, at the time we are already at war with al-Qaeda and occupying Afghanistan, just a year and a half after 9/11? Given what we know now, the decision to invade Iraq was a big mistake. Given what we knew at the time, it still seemed like a bad idea to many. This wasn't a "leftist" point of view, it was one that many shared across the political spectrum. Once we were in-country, we assumed the responsibility to make things right, and it would have been a mistake to leave. But Bush's bungling of the postwar administration and overreliance on the incompetent Rumsfeld exacerbated the situation and prolonged the suffering. Can we stop pretending that only leftists hold this point of view? Most of the country feels this way – and carping about what Democrats said at the time only changes the subject and ignores the important point.
Seriously, the sooner Republicans accept that the Bush administration, particularly as applies to Iraq, was largely a disaster, the sooner we can all move on to the challenges facing us today.
"Ebert is already there."
You're a real asshole.
But they didn't lie, they were mistaken. So says every intelligence agency in the world, even ones from countries who were absolutely against the Iraq War.
Your entire worldview depends on them lying, because you can forgive someone an honest mistake in a righteous cause, but not a bold faced liar.
I'm confused as to what this has to do with my response. I took issue with John's characterization of a certain scene's dramatic intention. My reference to "what happened" applies to the fact that Bush put the Department of Defense in charge of the occupation, sidelining State and CIA, and as a direct result of poor decisions by Rumsfeld and his lackeys, American soldiers were killed.
Like Oliver Stone being the director of "World Trade Center" or Neil Young singing "Let's Roll." They had a moment of clarity after 9/11 but quickly slid back to sleep.
Perhaps. The cries for "regime change" were LOUD and LONG and from many prominent DEMOCRATS who were privvy to the same intell everybody else had.
The calls to remove Saddam forcebly date back to Bush's days as Governnor of Texas. The U.N. explicitly blocked a '91 incursion into Iraq, the 2002 resolutions were crap.
I don't think there is any doubt that the world is a better place without a Saddam in it and a more stable and successfiul Iraq as the result. History will judge the results of this many decades in the future, I'm comfortable that the out come will be postitive.
Thanks. It's nice to hear somebody else on this board say the obvious. I can see from your previous comments, you are definitely a conservative (I don't claim to be, personally) – so perhaps someone will listen to you. Above all other issues in the past 10 years, this is the one that drove a wedge between me and Bush/conservatism/the GOP and it still dismays me to see so many drinking the kool-aid, however unrepresentative they may be of the wider public.
I'm relieved that Petreaus pulled off the counter-insurgency (of which the surge was but an element) and thrilled that the country seems to be coming together somewhat. A cousin just returned from his deployment, and said that even in the time he was there (2009 – 2010) he saw a marked improvement on the ground. I think that we need to pull of a similar feat in Afghanistan though the circumstances are very different – the notion that we can pack up and leave seems foolhardy to me. At any rate, none of this changes the fact that Bush was not only mistaken to go into Iraq but was completely unprepared for the situation after, . It still gives me a sick feeling in my gut to remember all of this. It isn't politics. I supported Bush before Iraq. I wanted the mission to succeed once we went in. And I hope everything turns out well for the country.
It is shoulda could woulda, for sure. But the alternative – giving Bush a historical pass and focusing enmity on minor targets instead of noting what went wrong and hoping we can prevent it in the future, is much, more worse.
And let me add, the surgery was a masterpiece; there is no way govt healthcare would have authorized it, they would have definitely gone with a cheaper archaic procedure. He built a small titanium ladder up a portion of my spine relieving several herniated discs and a ligament including calcium buildup pushing on the spinal cord. The ladder created permanent spacing protecting the new "artificial discs" for lack of a better word. From there natural fusion will solidify it. This is all a byproduct of sports and extreme sports over the last 2 decades; the rapid deterioration occurred within a 3 week period. All my spinal pain is gone. not even a lingering pain. Even more remarkable is that I was on table being operated less than 24 hrs ago and am 99% recovered and at home already. This is a testament to the expertise of my surgeon and the quality medical products that are created through R&D to better our lives.
Does anyone think govt would authorize such a surgery? The govt will authorize aspirin and pay for a coffin.
Support the troops…except when they disagree with you.
Point taken.
The story I read was a "projection" based on various factors including the continued strength of "Alice in Wonderland" and the previous struggles of other "Iraq themed fims".
My apologies, I misread the numbers and dates.
What is your point, exactly?
I see you're extremely slow. Liberal airheads like to blather about how "Bush lied", well, looks like the leftwing vermin were saying the same thing. Of course once it became politically expedient to change their tune they did. You're in over your head moron.
There are no more films with a retro-jingoist patriotism. Not every soldier is a strung out shell-of-a-man baby killer either. The "produced in cooperation" vibe that exists now is one of celebrity pledges of servitude to our current president and "documentaries" about fat uncle Hugo. I think the reaction against a movie like this is that there are a lot of us who would like to see the Hollywood people who talk about respecting our soldiers put some more of that up the screen. There's nothing artistically wrong with a film that does that. "Blackhawk Down" painted that mission as a CF without wasting itself on lessons in moral equivalence.
1. I don't care what liberal airheads like the blather about. But constantly focusing on them, you're ignoring the more relevant issue: what Bush did, and the effects it had.
2. I didn't ask how it made the war legal. I asked how it justified it – especially at a time when we were already in the middle of a war with someone who had actually attacked us.
3. I'm not ignorant. I'm not a liberal. And I'm talking about the inspections in the spring of 2003, right before the war, not the inspections year earlier. Why don't you get your facts straight?
You continue to attack straw men. How about dealing with the facts? I have no reason to wish Bush a poor leader, or the war on Iraq a mistake, or the occupation poorly executed. I have every reason to wish the opposite. Why, then, do I acknowledge these points? Could it be beacause they are sadly, unfortunately, irretrievably true?
I demand a "Team America 2" – it's the only way I'll ever enjoy another Matt Damon film.
As for Greengrass, he's know made two films where the CIA is the villian (Bourne), and one where Bushy/Pentagon/Military is the villian. The guy needs to get some new material. Not only is his shaky-cam a self-parody, but so is he.
I like some realistic war movies please…is it too much to ask? Wasn't Zack Snyder planning an Afghan War movie? What happened to "No True Glory" – the movie that was to be about the Battle of Fallujah?
Nothing will bring back the dead soldiers and Iraqis. To make their deaths worth something (beyond the honor accruing to the sacrifice in the former case) I too hope Iraq works out in the long run. But a positive outcome does not undo the damage Bush did. It will, and should, remain an albatross around his neck for the rest of his days.
I've heard no one on these boards acknowledge the bungling of the occupation, quite aside from the decision to invade. Many, including Condoleeza Rice and John McCain were arguing for a change in strategy far earlier – and only Bush's stubbornness kept Rumsfeld and Cheney calling the shots. He stomped into Iraq full of hubris and then it was revealed that the emperor had no clothes (in a war of choice, why did we wait until 2 months before the invasion to start planning the occupation?). Unfortunately, it was the troops who suffered the slings and arrows of Bush's "bring 'em on" bravado.
screenplay for Saving Private Ryan,
What the hell has happened to Hanks? All the good will he had flushed down the toilet. Damn I liked him too. He was compared to Jimmy Stewart once. They even had a photo together on a magazine. What a mistake that was.
I loved Matt Damon for awhile. Really admired his movie Good Will Hunting. But since his remarks about Sarah Palin it was clear he was just not up on politics or had even a passing acquaintance with the truth. Perhaps too busy making movies with George Clooney. All of which I liked so much.
And the Bourne films.. just enjoyed them so much. What a disappointment he has become.
He could do so much as a force for good but decides this is the way to honor the charmed life he has lived under the protection of our way of life and our military. I know John has hit this one hard and I suspect it might not be hard enough. These Hollywood types had better get a grip. They depend on our box office dollars and this is not the way to enhance a bank account or a career.
How about dealing with the facts?
You wouldn't know facts if they bit you on the dick.
Its all well and good to sit without the responsibility and second guess the things Bush did, but I'll posit that he could have done no different with the intel he was being given.
NEWS FLASH: The Miltary draft ended about 35 YEARS ago. No young man or women deployed to Iraq was conscripted. They were ALL VOLUNTEERS!
Liberals hiding behaing faux compassion for military personnel is a bad joke. If Bill "Bubba" Clinton wasn't such a douchbag the entire Iraq situation wouldn't have festered as long as it did.
The whole regional political situation BLEW up on 9/11, and the administation had to sort it out and and "Get er done".
It's interesting that despite Obama's 180 degree turn in PERCEPTIOn of how the U.S. will "behave" he's JUST as unpopular worldwide as any other U.S. president.
Which is the bigger point. The U.S. is ALWAYS "unpopular" worldwide. It's how it is. They'll take our money and pay lip service to "cooperation and peace" but will always try to take advantage of us.
I don't know how often you get out of U.S. airspace but I was born in Asia and have been around the world a bit and the WORLD HATES US, they want to BE US and they're jealous of us and given the chance MOST of them would be HERE.
It's our cross to bear. Don't over play the world hates us because of Bush. Remember what Machiavelli taught us: it's best to be both feared and loved but it's better to be feared than loved.
The world feared Bush but had to respect him – BECAUSE if provoked – HE WOULD BOMB THEIR ASS.
Touche. I got a minus 5 so my substantive response must have been far inferior to your witty rejoineder.
And I'm guessing you're the type who whines about liberals being "intolerant" and using emotions instead of logic, and resorting to insults. Heck, maybe you are a liberal, pretending to be a conservative so that you can demonstrate every stereotype that's ever been perpetuated about the "narrow-minded", "ignorant" right. If so, you couldn't be doing a better job.
I don't think any objective person would grade the Iraqi war effort an A+. That's not realistic. What pisses me off is all the Democrat cheerleaders who suddenly "saw the light" and turned on Bush for PURELY PARTISAN reasons. They saw an opening and took it. Politics.
John "Prick" Kerry. "I voted for the measure before I voted against it". That cost that hypocrite the presidency. He was FOR IRAQ before he was AGAINST IRAQ. He's a liar.
This House flip coming up will be for a long time. Voters who are generally unengaged arfe tired of the leftist spending, hypocracy, and softness vis a vis TERROR. Obama has squandered any goodwill he gained by executing the surge in Afganistan (late and 3/4 of requested troops) by coddling terrorists with lawyers and "rights" like common stick up men.
Sean Penn, Danny Glover and Jane Fonda are the top three most discussing people in America, but Matt Damon is getting right up there with them. They don't deserve the dirt off the foot of an American soldier. Why do they think they can get away with re-writing history. I know Sean, Danny and Jane are all stupid but Matt, I thought he had more sense. Oh, that's right he's from the USSR of Boston.
Matt, why don't you move to Europe and leave good Americans alone. You really arn't welcome here anymore.
I guess I just wish he would wake up and see the harm he is bringing to the very men and women this movie portrays. If he did, he could see they are true heroes. I don't really wish cancer of any kind on him–I'd rather stay above Penn's level.
As were the various winner at the Oscars from 'Hurt Locker".
It's been suggested that the agents and publistists (and maybe accoutants) have clued these bird brains in to the fact that they are ALIENATING the very audience they are trying to persuade to see their work by BAD MOUTHING the very people the are trying to persuade to see their work.
Duh Hollywood…ya think?
Ewald, thanks for responding rationally to my comment. That may be a first tonight, at least on this thread.
What did it take for Bush to find the right men? Even allowing that he planned to sack Rumsfeld before the election (can you imagine how many defeated Republicans are infuriated he didn't do so?!), it took years of criticism and decreasing popularity, with impending defeat for his party at the polls. He really should not have been so stubborn – I'm not saying he should have called it a night, but he took the path of least resistence. You see his persistence as steadfast, I see it as weak.
I do give him credit for the surge – but to me it is not nearly enough to mitigate his poor judgment in choosing the Iraq War – and it was a choice – and his horrible leadership in executing it.
By the way, as many seem to think I and others who criticize Bush harbor some irrational personal hatred for him, I don't. I met him very briefly at a campaign stop in 2000 and he was very charming and likable. Even after I lost faith in him as a politician, I did not think he was fundamentally a bad person, just a bad leader. I'm sure I would have voted for him in 2000 if I had been old enough (I was 17), and if he had focused on Afghanistan and al Qaeda in '03 and '04 I would probably have been inclined to vote for him in 2004. This is not personal, and it's not even very political. Just wanted to make that clear. To the numerous trolls and cretins on this board, that will mean nothing, but to those who harbor reason perhaps they'll have a better sense of where I'm coming from.
[...] the original post here: REVIEW: Matt Damon & Paul Greengrass Get Their HateAmerica On In ‘Green Zone’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Yes, liberals are intolerant squealing swine; and I've already addressed your asinine comments but apparently it's pearls before swine. If you were capable of critical thought you would have extrapolated from my comment about the unenforced 17 UN security council revolutions that that implies that the UN is toothless and feckless offering no authority to its decisions. And if that's the case why have a UN at all? President Bush's actions gave teeth to the the UN by assembling an international force against Hussein [the other Hussein]. And this of course was all made possible through the war in Afghanistan which offered the US via the UN to collect on those resolutions.
You are ignorant and you are a fool.
Actually it was for wearing assless chaps to an "unannounced" Obama visit to the "Castro District" in San Francisco during Campaigh '08. (little druggin' and man lovin')
The legend of "Big John" was born…
One year, at the Oscars I think, Sean Penn made a comment differentiating actors from the government (in a joking manner) saying something like the follow "we're all together–except we actors) knew there were no WMD." And how exactly did Penn and his peers KNOW this? Is there an intelligence contingent in the SAG. So, liberal assumption vs. multi-national intelligence consensus based on evidence. Of course, the former is the one you'd want to turn to in any situation. They have the uncanny supernatural ability to know things just based on their beliefs rather than any empirical evidence.
How come the revelation that Saddam was in fact trying to make the world believe he had WMD in order to get respect never got much traction in the media? Now if you're debating with someone, you have to bring it up as a little known fact that may or may not be believed, unlike, say, the well-know fact that Saddam had violated UN no fly zones.
lol! "How do ya like dem,um der apples?" 'CUT!!" " DAMMIT MAAAATTTTYYYYYY!!!"
Jamesb, I appreciate the reasoned response (sadly, it's becoming necessary to say that in these parts). What we have hear is a difference of emphasis. I am no fonder of Democratic hypocrisy than you are; but the fact is that Bush took responsibility for the war – it was his push, his rationale, his plan. I am much more alarmed with what went wrong with the war than with the cowardice and opportunism of politicians. It seems a much greater offense to me, hence I get tired of hearing conservatives focus their artillery on their natural opponents rather than offer either mea culpas or distance themselves from the poor decisions of their leaders. They expect Democrats to do as much – and rightfully so – and criticize them when they don't.
I won't open up the terrorists' "rights" issue, though I seem to disagree with you there. As for Afghanistan, a few months late is not as bad as 3 years, particularly when Bush had gotten us into the situation he was getting us out of in the first place. I think the real test of Obama on Afghanistan will come in 2011, when – with an election looming – he has to face the situation on the ground and decide whether or not to play into the public perception that we're leaving the country (even though his present strategy, however suggestive, does not actually indicate this). People seem to forget that the reason we're in the very situation we're in now is because we abandoned Afghanistan in 1989. "Those who forget history…" et cetera…
Why are we talking about the UN again? Oh, right, because you want to. Not because of anything I said. My argument about justification pertained to over-extension of U.S. resources and focusing on an important mission at hand, not on the efficacy of the United Nations.
Keep the insults coming. Somewhere, a liberal is grinning (not I).
First: Iraq wasn't a poor choice. Not at all. When that's your foundation there's no way you can see the rest of it rationally.
Second: Rumsfeld is not why so many Republicans lost. Pork and whimpy reactions to Democrat pounding did that. Many Republicans stayed home because they didn't think their party was listening to them. That'll lose you the election.
Third: Saddam Hussein was within months of bribing out the sanctions and restarting his WMD program for which he had all the components necessary to become a very deadly enemy. If you doubt this because the UN inspectors say to doubt it, just remember that the UN inspectors only recently admitted Iran has a thriving nuclear weapon operation. Again, your foundation would be weak.
So, maybe you think I'm not as rational as Ewald, but every time I see someone who objected to the Iraq war in the first place, I see a lopsided view of everything else that happened thereafter.
Bush made a lot of mistakes, but thank goodness he had the nerve to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein. Remember the day of the spider hole, Khaddafi ponied up tons of information on international trading of nuclear materials and information. If that's all that happened it was worth it. But that's not all that happened. Ask any Iraqi with a purple finger this week. It could have been done better, but it was worth it.
Or .. you know … get other troops killed by participating in anti-American propaganda.
I think this the biggest problem with this movie is that the Miller character was miscast. Everyone knows Chief Warrant Officers are dead sexy.
Actually, it was more a direct result of the Democrats and the US media encouraging the insurgents by saying we were losing the war from day one. This is exactly how Vietnam was lost.
But then, you think we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place and you work from there. It's an alternate and uninformed reality and there's no arguing with it.
OK. The weekend is still fresh. What's the over/under on box office for this travesty.
I'll place it at $22 million.
Every post of yours is clueless, clueless, clueless. It's almost alarming because I know so many people with such a distorted view of what happened. It's criminal, really, the way the disinformation has been flowing in the past two decades.
FACT: MOVIES are more important than stupid politics.
Everyone, thank BigJohnHawkins and those who agree with his statement above for the idiot currently residing in the White House. Everything they needed to know before casting their ballots, they learned from watching movies.
Please – don't play the "if your weren't so dense you'd get this card". You're not dealing with some rube drinking beer and belching in a way too small t-shirt in a trailer park.
The vast and wide opinion was in FACT in support of invading Iraq while we're in the theatre of operations anyway.
The 5th Fleet was there already and more Naval power was moving in, 73 Senators voted to authorize in a very vociferous to "just get it done" As tyou remember resolution passed both nouses by WIDE margines and if you think political decisions reflect the mood of the country (they usually do, except with this crazy Congress) sentiment was FOR INVASION.
The Taliban was initially moved out and government rstored and schoolas and some normalcy restored in Afganistan. The Marines had things generally contained.
As Iraq became more stable through 07, 08 the insurgency shifted and rose up in Afganistan – hence Obama & Co. playing the "Right War" tack.
Yes! And can Code Pink be dumped there with them? Please?
mousiemarie,
I disagree with you but I don't think you're irrational. That was reserved for the people who have resorted to insults, hypocritically I might add as their beef with liberals is their supposed intolerance and lack of logic.
1. I don't think this is true. I thought Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan, and that of the many challenges we faced in the world Saddam was maybe 5th or 6th on the level of importance. But I wanted us to succeed in overthrowing him and making the country a better place once the invasion was underway. I see no reason that doubting the premise of the war would color my responses to the events that unfolded afterward.
2. The war was wildly unpopular in 2006 – pork has been around forever, and as for wimpy reactions that was not the common public perception of the GOP at this time. Your argument is a convincing demonstration of why Republicans stayed home, but not why Democrats were more motivated than ever and why, and this is most crucial, independents swung hard towards Dems. In 2004, the Republicans won – and the war was popular. In 2006 they did not – and the war was not. Obviously there were other things going on, but I see no reason to believe Iraq was not a major factor.
3. This is an awful lot of conjecture. I see no reason to believe it, especially when the much more believable notion that Saddam did have some WMDs was proven to be false. This argument is kind of the equivalent of
4. Am I the only one who was aware of Khaddafi's overtures towards us long before Iraq? I read an article in 2002, shortly after 9/11, in which it was demonstrated that he was reaching out to us diplomatically – obviously seeing an opportunity to cozy up to his former enemy, as not cozying up to us hadn't worked out so well to him and now we were in a position where we were re-assessing our allies. The idea that the Iraq War caused Libya to give up its weapons seems wrongheaded in light of this history.
Finally, it's hard to say what was "worth it" and what wasn't. Good and bad things can come out of any situation – my father (and hence me) would never have been born if not for World War II (during which his own parents met). This of course does not mean that Hitler's aggression was "worth it", just that good can grow from bad. From the perspective of 2003, even not knowing all the horror that was to come (only the experts, the ones whom Bush refused to listen to, seemed to have a real inkling of what could be in store), the benefit of the invasion – a possible democracy in the Middle East, the end of Saddam's reign – did not seem worth the costs (more dead Americans, distraction from the war on terror). It would be foolish to wish to turn back time and undo good, bad, etc. But that doesn't mean we don't hold leaders responsible for their mistakes or pat them on the back despite egregious errors.
Thanks for a reasonable discussion. I've already stayed a little too long on these boards, as I have to get up again in 5 hours, but at least some fruitful conversation emerged, somewhere along the way.
Didn't finish my analogy in #3. A comparison to Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football will suffice.
Goodnight and good luck.
Jamesb, your comment was posted directly under my own using the "Reply" function. Hence my assumption that it was in response to me.
The majority of the country supported the Iraq invasion. I never suggested otherwise. But as I recall, it was not an overwhelming majority and I certainly knew many others like myself who either harbored doubts or actively opposed entry. It's not as if the country was as united behind going into Iraq as they were behind going into Afghanistan – when only pacifists and kooky leftists voiced objection. It was a contentious decision arriving at a time when America was relatively united, and it did a lot to disrupt the post-9/11 mood of common purpose.
You must be logged in to post a comment.